Madras High Court
R.Nirmala Devi vs The Special District Revenue ... on 16 June, 2023
WA No.2490 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA , CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
WA No.2490 of 2021
R.Nirmala Devi ... Appellant
Vs
1.The Special District Revenue Officer,
Land Acquisition N.H. 45-A (Unit 1) Cuddalore,
2nd Floor District Collectorate Office,
Cuddalore 607001
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition N.H. 45-A (Unit 1) Cuddalore,
No.64, 3rd Cross Street,
Seethaam Nagar, Pudhupalayam,
Cuddalore 607001
3.The Commissioner,
Department of Industries and Commerce,
SIDCO Corporate Office Building,
3rd Floor, Thiru.Vi.Ka, Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai 32.
4.The Joint Director/General Manager,
District Industries Centre,
SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Semmandalam, Cuddalore 607001
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2490 of 2021
5.The Chairman,
Coir Board Coir House,
Mahathma Gandhi Road, Kochi 682 016
6.The President,
Cuddalore District Coir,
Fibre & Yarn Manufacturers Association,
No.123, Murugan Koil Street,
Sangallikuppam, SIDCO Post
Cuddalore District 607005 ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 30.07.2021 in WP No.10610 of 2021.
For the Appellant :: Mr.N.U.Pressanna
For the Respondents :: Mr.U.Bharanidharan,
Additional Government Pleader,
for respondents 1 to 4
Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy,
for the fifth respondent
Mr.S.Kishore Kumar,
for the sixth respondent
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in WP No.10610 of 2021, dated 30.07.2021, whereby the the
writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2490 of 2021
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was the owner of the entire land acquired under the provisions of the
National Highways Act. Part of the land was leased to the sixth
respondent for running a coir unit. The building was constructed by
the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent did not pay arrears of rent
to the appellant. As such, the sixth respondent gave a letter to the
appellant stating that the appellant would be entitled for the
compensation amount of the superstructure, as the total land and
building was acquired. According to the learned counsel, the
competent authority, without issuing notice to the appellant, came to
the conclusion that the amount is required to be paid to respondents
3 and 5. The learned counsel submits that in fact, respondents 3 and
5 are not the owners of the superstructure also. They do not have
any right over it.
3. Learned counsel for the sixth respondent submits that the
letter was sent by the sixth respondent, in the capacity of president
of the Cuddalore District Coir, Fibre & Yarn Manufacturers Association,
to the appellant stating that the rent amount could not be paid. As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2490 of 2021
such, the letter was given to receive the compensation by the
appellant. According to the learned counsel, even the sixth
respondent has contributed for the construction of the superstructure.
4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that the cost of construction was Rs.44 lakh; however the
compensation awarded was Rs.59,51,894/-.
5. The amount of compensation for the building has been
determined by the authorities under the provisions of the National
Highways Act. The appellant cannot be aggrieved by the valuation of
the building.
6. Admittedly, appellant is not the owner of the superstructure.
In India, the concept of dual ownership exists. One person can be
owner of the land and another person can be owner of the
superstructure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2490 of 2021
7. The authorities have awarded a compensation of
Rs.59,51,894/-. Respondents 3 and 5 have contributed Rs.43 lakh
whereas the sixth respondent has contributed only Rs.1 lakh for the
construction of superstructure.
8. By any stretch, the appellant does not have any right over
the superstructure to claim the entire compensation amount.
9. Reliance placed by the appellant on the letter written by the
sixth respondent is an eye wash. The sixth respondent, is the son of
the appellant. It is with a view to deprive respondents 3 and 5 of
their amount, the said letter appears to have been given.
10. We see no error in the order passed by learned Single
Judge.
11. In case the sixth respondent claims to have any right in
seeking compensation amount, on the ground that he has contributed
Rs.One lakh, it is for the sixth respondent to take appropriate steps
in that regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2490 of 2021
12. The writ appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to
costs. Consequently, WMP No.16162 of 2021 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
16.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2490 of 2021
To
1.The Special District Revenue Officer,
Land Acquisition N.H. 45-A (Unit 1) Cuddalore,
2nd Floor District Collectorate Office,
Cuddalore 607001
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition N.H. 45-A (Unit 1) Cuddalore,
No.64, 3rd Cross Street,
Seethaam Nagar, Pudhupalayam,
Cuddalore 607001
3.The Commissioner,
Department of Industries and Commerce,
SIDCO Corporate Office Building,
3rd Floor, Thiru.Vi.Ka, Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai 32.
4.The Joint Director/General Manager,
District Industries Centre,
SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Semmandalam, Cuddalore 607001
5.The Chairman,
Coir Board Coir House,
Mahathma Gandhi Road,
Kochi 682 016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2490 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(tar)
WA No.2490 of 2021
16.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
